M&P 9c my impressions of 1.0 vs 2.0

My EDC is a Shield9 which I really like but I'm planning on buying a M&P 9c soon. I don't know if I'll make it my carry gun or not but I would like another 9mm range gun so that when we go shooting my son and I will each have a 9mm to shoot. At least that's how I justify buying another gun to myself.

At any rate I've been doing some research online about the differences between the 1.0 and 2.0 versions of the compacts, but of course that doesn't tell the whole story so I went to a couple gun stores yesterday to get the hands on feel for the two versions, and was a little surprised by a couple things.

I had assumed that the 1.0 would be substantially cheaper now that the 2.0 is widely available but that doesn't seem to be the case. The first version is becoming harder to find new, but when available the price difference isn't much. I did see some used 1.0's at decent prices but I want to buy new. On that basis alone I'd already thought that I might as well buy the newer version, but still wanted to do some comparisons.

I knew the 1.0 had a 12 round mag and the 2.0 had a 15 round mag but I wasn't sure if the grips were the same length and the mags were just different, sort of like the Shield 7 round mag is shorter than the 8 round mag. I saw right away that the grip lengths were much different. I felt the 1.0 grip was too short, sort of like my Shield with the 7 round mag. My pinky was barely on the grip and my son has bigger hands and I know his pinky would be in the wind with a grip that short. In my eyes the longer 2.0 grip was much more comfortable.

Coming from the single stack Shield to the double stack compact I was concerned that the grip might be too fat for my smaller hands but was pleased to see that it didn't seem all that much thicker, and in fact felt real good in my hands.

To me the 1.0 was very similar in size to my Shield while the 2.0 was only marginally bigger. The 2.0 I looked at was with the 4 inch barrel so that was noticeably longer, but if I opted for the 3.6 inch it wouldn't be as pronounced. I'm kind of thinking I might want the longer 4 inch barrel though as it should make it a slightly better range gun. I'll probably buy that barrel length and if I think I'd rather have the shorter barrel later it'll just give me an excuse to buy another gun.

I'm going to wait till after this weekend and see if any black Friday deals pop up that I want to jump on, otherwise I'll probably buy the 4 inch 2.0 next week.

You’re on the right track with the 4-inch 2.0 version, IMO. I would steer clear of the older M&P9, both in full size and compact models, unless you are strictly a short-range shooter (10-yards or less), and/or don’t mind pouring a bunch of money into “aftermarket fixes” such as a new barrel and trigger parts. My experience is that the 2.0s are much better guns. I don’t think you could find one of the older guns discounted enough that I would want to buy it.

The M&P 9 Compact 1.0 has become the M&P 9 Subcompact 2.0. Both are 12 rounds.

When the new 2.0 was just rolling out for $525 IIRC the LGS here near "the Burgh" had a full size (17rd) 1.0 "as new in box" for $300.

While not a fan of the "new stuff" I couldn't leave it behind for those $$$s added 4 more mags (on Sale for <$100) and a TLR-3 Streamlight for a "house gun"

Figure all shooting will be <50ft...... more like 7-10yds.

Saudade said:

The M&P 9 Compact 1.0 has become the M&P 9 Subcompact 2.0. Both are 12 rounds.

Click to expand...

You can use the 15 round magazines in both the 1.0 version and the 2.0 sub-compact. The 15 round magazine makes the grip the same length as the Shield and feels much better to shoot.

I couldn't resist an M&P9C 1.0 this summer for $270 after rebate.

A 17-round magazine works great for a reload.

gc70 said:

I couldn't resist an M&P9C 1.0 this summer for $270 after rebate.

A 17-round magazine works great for a reload.

Click to expand...

I like the 17 round magazine for the range but the 15 round magazine makes it easier to concealed carry.

I have all 3 1.0 compacts-9, 40 and 45. They are all accurate and just enough larger than the Shields, to make them perfect for concealed carry (IMO). If you're looking at a 4" barreled "compact", you might as well carry a Full Size (again, my opinion 4" vs 4.25").

So many choices, and that's a GOOD thing. Pick what will work for YOU, then shoot, clean, repeat. And Enjoy!

Shield is my EDC and I just picked up the 4” compact. A little bigger than the Shield but I will carry it in the winter, maybe more if it I can conceal it well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raisin said:

You can use the 15 round magazines in both the 1.0 version and the 2.0 sub-compact. The 15 round magazine makes the grip the same length as the Shield and feels much better to shoot.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I don't know about the sub-compact because I didn't see one of those.

The 9c 1.0 and 2.0 versions were in different stores so I didn't have an actual side by side comparison but I'm certain the actual grips were different lengths so I don't see how the 15 round 2.0 mag would fit the shorter grip of the 1.0 compact. I can't see how they could interchange.

I looked on gun mag warehouse and it specifically says the 12 round 1.0 mags will not fit the 2.0's, so it would stand to reason the reverse would also be true.

The 15-round 2.0 magazine is longer. It will not “fit” the 1.0 M&P Compact flush with the bottom of its frame, but it will be usable if you don’t mind it hanging out of the bottom of the 1.0. I think that is what the seller is referring to when he says the 2.0 mag won’t fit the 1.0.

Edit... Yes, the 1.0 mags are shorter for the shorter grip of that model and wouldn’t work in the 2.0. Sorry for any confusion. I read your post wrong when I started my reply. The 2.0 “Subcompact” and 1.0 “Compact” mags should be the same length and work in either gun.

So to complete the story, the 12 round mags will fit both the 2.0 SC and 1.0C. The 15 round 2.0 mags will also fit both but will stick out a bit. The 17 round mags (fullsize) will also fit both but stick out more. The 17 round mags will also fit the 2.0 Compact but stick out a bit.

You can get sleeves to fill the gap. XGrip is one company that makes sleeves for both 1.0s and 2.0s. I use Xgrips for my FS mags in my 1.0 Compact. S&W includes sleeve adapters for the 17 round mags to use in the 2.0 Compact.

The sleeves eliminate the gap and prevent overinsertion on the larger mags.

I should add that the same holds true for restricted state mags. Here in CA, the fullsize mags are restricted to 10 rounds but are "fullsize". Some other states restrict to 15 rounds but are still fullsize.

Thank you Saudade for the very clear explanation of the mag differences.

I just received my new M&P 2.0 Subcompact 9mm from my FFL holder last week. Since they only come with 2 magazines (one flush mount and one pinky extended), I wanted more of the Pinky extended mags so that my little finger doesn't hang off of the bottom of the grip. I wrote to S&W since there is very, very little information out there on these handguns, even on the S&W website, and asked if the magazine from the old M&P 9c COMPACT was the same as for the new 2.0 SUBcompact. They told me that they were completely different magazines, with different part numbers, and the old magazine would not fit into the new gun.
So, I bought 4 of the older 9c magazines from GunMag Warehouse for a discounted price. They arrived today and I put my calipers on the new and the old. Absolutely a perfect match down to the tenth of a mm. I also took it out to the range and fired all 4 9c mags next to the ones that came with the new Subcompact, and they fed the Beast just fine.
One note: The magazines are REEEEALLY tight on the 12th round. I have a Maglula UpLULA magazine loader and that last round you have to fight to get it into the magazine. No tolerance at all!
As for the size of the pistol, it is almost identical to the 2.0 Shield, except it is wider to accept the 4 extra rounds of ammo and double-stack mag compared to the single stack of the Shield. When I received the gun, everybody at the FFL holder wanted to hold it and feel the weight. We put it next to a Shield, saw that it was a bit wider, and they were all surprised that it held 12 rounds instead of 10.
One other thing is that the pistol is pretty heavy for such a small gun. It is 21.5 oz empty with no magazine (30 oz loaded). I have a Walther PPQ 5" that is only an ounce-and-a-half heavier with no magazine in it.
With a full magazine in it, the Subcompact balances very nicely.
I've only shot it once so I don't have a lot more to say right now, especially as the sights need adjusting, so I'll wait until I can set up a rest to fire it again. I can also say that, even with the large "hand swell" backing fitted on the grip, it is still just a bit small for my hands, which are just slightly on the large size. Sorry but I can't compare it to the 9c as I have never shot one.
Also, for those that want to order the magazines, the OLD part number is 194530000. They gave me a new part number, but that comes up as a flush mount, and is unavailable anywhere, anyway. Kind of strange that a company as well-known and respected as S&W would not have parts available upon release of the a new gun. Trying to find a holster for this thing is a little difficult also, as nobody has the new gun, and so does not want to say that something they already manufacture will or will not fit for liability reasons, I guess. I have an Aliengear IWB for a 2.0 compact coming this week which I can return if it doesn't fit.

Thanks to Saudade for clarifying what I already pretty much knew, even when faced with mis-information from S&W.

Hope this helps.

Forgot to post this for comparison of the old and the new:

S&W M&P 9c
> Barrel length 3.5
> Length 6.7
> Height 4.3
> Width 1.2
>
>
> Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 subcompact 9mm
> Barrel length 3.6
> Length 6.6
> Height 4.98
> Width 1.5

Wonder why they call it a subcompact? It’s bigger in all but one dimension than the 9c, and that’s only .1”

My 9C has a height of 4.3" with a flat mag base and 5" with a pinky-extension.

As to width, my 9C is 1.2" across the widest part of the frame (the flares that protect the mag release), 1.3" across the ambi slide releases, and slightly more than 1.5" across the ambi thumb safeties.

I picked up a M&P9c for 270.00 after rebate. I also have the 2.0 compact 4" and the full size 1.0,plus the shield. I can guarantee the 15 and 17 round mags will fit the 9c. X-grip make a sleeve for the 17rnd mag and S&W will send you sleeves for the 15 and mag to fit the 9c.

On that note I ended up trading in my 9c and got a p365 to go in my carry rotation with the shield. If I need to I can carry the 2.0 compact just as easily as the 9c.

scattershot said:

Wonder why they call it a subcompact? It’s bigger in all but one dimension than the 9c, and that’s only .1”

Click to expand...

I believe it’s because when they first released a 4 inch barreled 15 round 9mm gun it was called a compact. They had to call the 12 round 3.? barreled gun something. So subcompact it was.
David

markmiela said:

Shield is my EDC and I just picked up the 4” compact. A little bigger than the Shield but I will carry it in the winter, maybe more if it I can conceal it well.

Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts as well. I'd been carrying my shield but having just got the 4" compact I like how it feels in my hands better and I think I shoot it a little better.

My normal winter wear is jeans and tee with a sweatshirt over top so it's easy to conceal the slightly bigger compact (AIWB) and I don't feel the extra weight bothers me so I'll carry the compact over the winter. Once it warms up to tee shirt without sweatshirt weather I'll go back to the shield as I don't think the tee covers the compact well enough.